The GOP War on Women - The Megathread

[John Dibble]

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring.

And should women who don't want to abort but need to do so for medical reasons be forced to go through extra hoops to make the experience even more traumatic? Because that's what is happening.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Planned Parenthood receive exactly 0 dollars from the government to fund abortions. What's being taken away from are programs that allow women to not get pregnant in the first place so they wouldn't have to consider an abortion and to ensure that babies they want are born healthy. In other words you'll still have the abortions, but you're taking away things that might actually prevent abortions - how exactly is that a good thing?

[John Dibble]

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6KUPje/www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/09/georgia-lawmaker-compares-women-to-cows-and-pigs/

Terry England, Georgia Republican Lawmaker, Compares Women To Farm Animals

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Video in the link. My state government is a sick joke.

[John Dibble]

The Democrats pushing this "War on Women" issue is tiresome. Everyone knows Republicans have issues with women, why do they have to talk about it all the time?

Because if they don't the Republicans will get away with it, duh. You don't just ignore an issue like this if you want it to go away.

[John Dibble]

The Democrats pushing this "War on Women" issue is tiresome. Everyone knows Republicans have issues with women, why do they have to talk about it all the time?

Because if they don't the Republicans will get away with it, duh. You don't just ignore an issue like this if you want it to go away.

QFT.

Never used that term before, but this post deserved it.

Yes, but is there not the slightest chance that the wagging of this issue may be easily spun by Republicans as one brought up ONLY to distract from the economy thus minimizing the rights of women to a mere campaign side-show? Is that really in the best interest of the community?

I don't think there's any good way the Republicans can spin people pointing out the problems with their women's rights issues in a way that favors them. They are losing women voters over this.

As far as the economy I don't believe it's been forgotten, nor ever will be. It is always a central issue in any major race, regardless of the other issues de jour. The issue still comes up. I also don't believe the Republicans really have the answers the our economic woes.

Also, ignoring women's rights issues is definitely not in the best interests of the community. Especially the female part.

[John Dibble]

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

In other words, you consider abortion murder but it's apparently not such a big deal that you insist it be treated like actual murder. You are fine with compromising on murder. How moral of you...

[John Dibble]

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

In other words, you consider abortion murder but it's apparently not such a big deal that you insist it be treated like actual murder. You are fine with compromising on murder. How moral of you...

There's more than one account of morality, obviously.  The sort of all-or-nothing deontology you are assuming is only one account.  If someone believes an act is horrible, then it's not necessarily immoral for them to approve of the nearest thing that will stop it just because it's not prosecuting it to the fullest.  Indeed, there's a sense in which refusing to act to stop murder due to concerns of legal consistency is itself a compromise with murder.
I'll go further than TJ here.  If there's any other way to stop abortion, I'd rather women not be sentenced a murderer's sentence for it. They're told that what they are doing isn't killing, they are pressured into it, etc. (I know this point has gotten me called condescending in the past, but whatever . . .)  The fundamental value here is not prosecuting murder, it is protection of innocent life. Having a juvenile justice system doesn't mean a murder isn't as awful just because there's a different legal response.  I imagine you think Truth and Reconciliation Commission was immoral because it wasn't the full Nuremburg treatment, but many people who had to live with real world consequences believe that for peace and healing it was the right thing to do.

I don't think you get what I'm actually saying - I'm saying that if he thinks it's ok to just dawdle and compromise over what he views as mass murder, then I don't think he actually views it as murder. IMO, his actions and attitude do not carry the same weight as someone who is dealing with mass murder within his own country.

Also, the TRC vs Nuremburg thing isn't an apt comparison to this issue - those were dealing with atrocities after they occurred. We're talking about something that is still occurring and will continue to occur.

[John Dibble]

I never include Abortion as part of the " War on women", because I personally believe protecting women's sexual freedom ( Contraceptives, birth control) is a completely different issue than fighting against the killing of babies.  Contraceptives represent basic rights that should be protected for women, whiles I feel abortion overrides the rights of a Child to life. When you impede on someone Else's rights I feel it's morally wrong especially when it comes to whether or not they're allowed to live (Which is the same reason I'm against the death penalty).  

Dude, we're not just talking about abortions for convenience - these people are trying to restrict abortions in cases of medical necessity. In the process they are also defunding organizations that help with contraceptives and healthy birthing, which is not going to decrease the number of abortions since none of that funding goes to abortions. Women are the ones who are affected most by this. Read the posted articles.

[John Dibble]

What should I do then Dibble? Should I oppose laws restricting abortion in strange ways just because they don't prosecute the women with murder? Heck, should I even oppose attempts to outlaw it if they wouldn't charge the women with murder for the sake of moral consistency?

None of that would accomplish a thing toward stopping abortion.

Supporting the strange laws isn't stopping it either. As I pointed out it just puts the women who actually have a medical need for the procedure through extra pain and defunds programs that might actually prevent abortions. I mean seriously, do you honestly think that forcing women to give birth to stillborn babies is going to help your cause?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You wouldn't have to go so far as overthrowing the government. You'll find that terrorism is unfortunately rather effective - why do you think there are people who bomb clinics and kill abortion providers? Those people are really committed to the idea and are willing to defend the innocent. Or hell, if you aren't willing to go that far you could be one of those folks who protest outside of clinics. Do you at least do that much, because if you don't the murder must not be that big of a deal to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's this thing called a "constitutional amendment" that you might look into.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you admit your position is stupid, then why advocate it in the first place?


EDIT - sorry if I was a bit of a dick here, was in a rather bad mood yesterday

[John Dibble]

What should I do then Dibble? Should I oppose laws restricting abortion in strange ways just because they don't prosecute the women with murder? Heck, should I even oppose attempts to outlaw it if they wouldn't charge the women with murder for the sake of moral consistency?

None of that would accomplish a thing toward stopping abortion.

Supporting the strange laws isn't stopping it either. As I pointed out it just puts the women who actually have a medical need for the procedure through extra pain and defunds programs that might actually prevent abortions. I mean seriously, do you honestly think that forcing women to give birth to stillborn babies is going to help your cause?

That's not what I said.

Earlier you did say you want Planned Parenthood to not get money, (again, even though none of those funds are used for abortion) and the bolded section indicates that you think you should support laws that restrict abortion in strange ways. If that's not your position, then what do you support?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't say it was. I said terrorism is unfortunately effective. You don't have to get people to outlaw it, you just have to get the providers to stop doing it. I'm not saying you should either. Frankly I think you shouldn't try to legislate your religious morality (and yes, I'm thinking your position is based on your religious beliefs) on others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you admit your position is stupid, then why advocate it in the first place?[/quote]

That's not what I said.

I said it's currently impractical so we need to take intermediate steps to get there. Those are two entirely different things.[/quote]

And your intermediate steps are...? I mean seriously, your argument above kind of makes it such that no such steps would be feasible either.

[John Dibble]

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions.

So you support cases like the one I posted where a woman who had to have an abortion or give birth to a child who would require constant expensive medical care and have a miserable life? And are you willing to have the state pay for this constant medical care since you're forcing the issue?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support making a fetus even more developed before it gets terminated?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support destroying programs that actually prevent abortions and allow low-income women to have healthy children, even though none of the funding you are taking away actually goes to abortions?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was speaking of the fact that you think this...



...is somehow a person, even though there's no evidence for that.

And honestly, if you think about it what's the problem? Your religion has heaven, right? If a fetus is killed it won't have sinned, so won't it go straight to heaven? There won't be any risk of it being raised by sinful parents who would have an abortion, so the soul's chances are much better this way. Or do you believe your deity is so monstrous that he condemns the unborn to hell?

1. I would suggest states should put the maximum possible restrictions they are legally able to do now.
2. We should attempt to get "strict constructionist" aka pro-life judges on the Supreme Court by voting for presidents who agree to appoint them.
3. Return the issue to the states and begin outlawing abortion by the state. It is less important to charge the women and providers with murder as it is to make it generally illegal such that an abortion is much more difficult to get.
4. As abortion is increasingly forced under the radar and into back alleys, begin upping the sentences and charging the women and doctors with murder.

That is, in my opionion, the most likely route to achieving the minimum number of abortions. I am not saying it's likely, just that it's a more likely route than anything else. If you have any actual suggestions rather than snarky insults I would be glad to hear them.

So exactly how are these steps going to change the problems you mentioned earlier with incarcerating women en masse? Abortions are going to still happen in large numbers, just as it always has.

[John Dibble]

Planned Parenthood is not the only healthcare provider in existence. Less money for them means more money for other health clinics. If there were some remote local area where Planned Parenthood was the only local provider of other care then I would be fine granting them an exemption. But in most places the opposite is true, for example, there are five clinics in my hometown that offer mammograms but zero abortion clinics.

1. The GOP doesn't care whether or not there are other clinics in a local area. The defunding is universal, regardless of whether a particular clinic even provides abortions. (HINT, not all of them do)
2. Among those five clinics, how many are non-profit? I'm betting most if not all of them are businesses, so that doesn't exactly help those who have low income. Even if you were to fund them for that purpose, they likely would still charge more so the money would not be used effectively)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Potential to become a person does not make it a person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having unique DNA does not make something a person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you talking about? It's completely arbitrary to give personhood to a zygote. It's a clump of cells with no brain - it can't think, it can't feel, etc. It has none of the qualifications we use to define "person". You might as well give personhood to an earthworm since it at least has a functioning brain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which almost nobody does. This is why even most pro-choice advocates are fine with third-trimester abortions being illegal, and why the are illegal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The heart is irrelevant to personhood as it is simply a pump for blood. On the other hand the brain does matter as that is what holds our memories, senses, feelings, intellectual capacity, etc., therefore it is perfectly logical to look at the state of brain development if you're going to make a determination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you really think this is a valid argument what business do you have telling others what they can and can't do based on things you can't prove?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that it’s okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isn’t acceptable. Murder is not okay, regardless of whether or not the person who is killed is in a better place. That person has the right to go through life. This applies to persons in society at large beyond abortion. If we take this as a purely religious argument then the soul of the baby is not the only one we should be concerned about. What about the mother?[/quote]

What about the mother? Presuming you're a Christian, then either she's saved or damned, right? If she's a good Christian who makes an honest mistake ("Thou shalt not abort" isn't explicitly stated in the Bible like certain other commands) or becomes one later then won't Jesus forgive her? And if she's not isn't she hellbound anyways? But let's suppose she is someone who does profess to be a Christian and does believe that God forbids abortion - if the only thing keeping her from having an abortion is man's law and not God's law, do you think that when her time comes that she'll really be among the chosen?

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which almost nobody does. This is why even most pro-choice advocates are fine with third-trimester abortions being illegal, and why the are illegal.

Which is even more arbitrary than calling birth the start of personhood because the cut-off between the second and third trimesters is when the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided to make it.[/quote]

No, birth is more arbitrary because it takes no other additional things, such as brain development, into account. Being arbitrary is about taking things on whim and preference rather than on fact an reason. The more things you take facts and information into account, the less arbitrary it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Intellectual capacity is what we should base our determinations on? Does this mean it's much less serious to kill and adult than an infant? They have a greater intellectual capacity.[/quote]

Intellectual capacity is certainly one of the factors. (notice those others I listed) We treat other lifeforms differently based on these same things. For instance most modern nations outlaw animal abuse, even though we're willing to kill some animals for food. Yet we don't afford plants that protection, even though they are also alive. Why do you think that is?

And no, of course it isn't less serious. The idea is that once a being reaches a certain level it becomes wrong to kill it. If there were a sapient race with just half of the brain power of humans, any civilized person in this day and age would say it would be wrong to kill them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What constitutes a mortal sin depends on your particular brand of Christianity. For instance one of the requirements in the Roman Catholic version is that you have to have full knowledge and understanding that what you are doing is a sin - I don't think most women who get abortions feel this way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree, but you've demonstrated no facts that show that a fetus in all stages of development is a person.

Science cannot answer questions of personhood because of the concept of a "person" is not a scientific concept.

What science can do is give us information which we can use to assess whether something is a person or not based on what our concept of a person is. We can look at the traits of things we consider to be persons, narrow down those traits to the ones we consider essential, and then make the comparisons against the subject we want to determine the personhood status of.